Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Universal Consciousness      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 1
view profile
History
Universal ConsciousnessPage 1 of 2    (1, 2)
If the question is asked: Is there universal consciousness (UC)? I can think of two ways in which people might define the term ‘Universal Conscousness’, scientifically and philosophically.

Scientifically, People think (as in an aware and focused process) by taking representations of information that have been store in various categories which psychologists call constructs. Example: Under the main heading of animal is all the information we know, as individuals, that can be assigned to qualities related to animals. Skin, fur, scales, teeth, feathers and so on. There is also a construct with a list of all the animals that we, individually, have learned about such as: Amphibians, Birds, Fish, Invertebrates, Mammals, Reptiles…. Now when we see an animal, we access the construct that includes all the qualities of animals to compare the features of the animal we see. After ascribing the proper features, we access the construct that categorizes the names of each animal to match the description of what we see to the sub-categories that cascade beneath the particular animal – then we can label the animal that we see.

Much easier to explain with visuals – but I think that makes the point, which is that in science consciousness is an individual process. That which makes us aware and capable of abstract thought are simply functions of the brain which we had always thought depended on the size of the brain and its associated physical attributes.

Philosophically, some people might consider UC similarly to what psychology refers to as constructs. But in the case of philosophy the universal consciousness exists outside the parameters of physical beings. While science limits categorical knowledge of humans only to what they have already learned at any given point in time, philosophy is prone to suggest that all knowledge is available all the time.


So philosophically speaking I have some questions:

Is the universal consciousness available to all living creatures?

What mode of transport functions between the UC and the user of its knowledge

What limits the ability of any animal to access the universal consciousness and form it into abstract thought to create new and unique ideas?
 _TALL_IQ2_
Joined: 2/10/2010
Msg: 2
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 8/31/2012 9:33:53 AM
Mostly what we see in the world is UUC, or uck for short.

Universal unconsciousness whether real or contrived.

Basic common sense knowledge in humans is mostly derived from experience, stored away in our giant brains,
with precious little built-in hard-wired instinct as many animals have.

CYCorp so far has programmed about 6 million "rules" into their database of "human common knowledge", which allowed their computer to beat all the best humans at Jeopardy last year.

What some metaphysical/meditative types may define as some "universal consciousness" is actually just a relaxed state of mind that frees up some of the usual constant worry streams of consciousness,
which can sometimes seem to ones own rarely relaxed mind that it has paranormal powers of perception/cognition.
 AnnB72
Joined: 7/2/2012
Msg: 3
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 8/31/2012 12:35:41 PM
So, this was an interesting document (actually a few pages from a book written by a mechanical engineer who has obviously spent some time researching this subject and who has made a hypothesis of his own as it relates to time).

http://www.nariphaltan.org/time.pdf
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 8/31/2012 4:03:32 PM
I'm going to need some clarification, in order to respond to this.

On my reading of the opening post, I see U.C. defined in one place, as though it is an artificially created database, while in another way, it is defined as an actual compilation of linked individual awarenesses. So I'm not sure which version of it you are talking about at any given time.

Surely, if U.C. is a database of human versions/observations of things, such as the description of a universal compilation of what we mean when we say "animal," then it is only accessible to others who can use human language and activity in order to look into it.

I actually think that "Universal Consciousness," and "construct" are mutually exclusive terms. Consciousness itself requires specific definition. I would suggest that if a being were a part of an even locally "universal" consciousness," that this would make it difficult, if not impossible for them to conceive of themselves as an individual.

Perhaps this U.C. is being confused with 'empathy,' or with the perception that an individual is ALSO a member of a group, and of a system, such that they knew that though they could act individually, that whatever they did would affect the entire group/system, and that they would know HOW their individual actions would affect the whole.

Based on what little I even suspect this is about, I can say for sure that I do not myself believe that a Universal Consciousness exists, in the sense that there is an intrinsic deep awareness between all individuals in any given group, which occurs independently of the individuals' efforts to participate in said group.
 Bezoa
Joined: 7/2/2012
Msg: 5
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/1/2012 12:08:30 AM
Well, I've heard about the "we make our reality" thingamajig, and since me, and all of my friends seem to see the same reality... This reality which seems accepted by most could be considered a universal way of seeing things, that which aren't necessarily as they appear.

I've heard of the idea of our brains being directly hooked to super powerful computers in a possible future. I am left to imagine that, with computers powerful and interacting enough, we could all become 1 sort of thing. I think they call this the singularity.

As for this universal database you can link to through spirituality, or whatnot, I'm not sure I believe in that.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/1/2012 1:22:59 PM

Perhaps this U.C. is being confused with 'empathy,' or with the perception that an individual is ALSO a member of a group, and of a system, such that they knew that though they could act individually, that whatever they did would affect the entire group/system, and that they would know HOW their individual actions would affect the whole.

On that note, I think the internet is the best example of what a UC could be like. Blogs, tweets, going viral, memes and everything that happens on the internet, things that are beyond the control of any one individual, yet it's started by someone and influenced by everyone. It's like of like urban legends - no one knows who created it, yet it's passed on by people and is shaped as it goes along. Like the neurons that make up the brain, our collective actions might lead to a new form of collective consciousness. Currently the internet is the best we have but one day we might be able to hook each other up directly in a sort of science-based telepathy (e.g., communication implants that we can control by our thoughts). I don't know if this phenomenon really deserves it's own name though (and of course it'd be a purely human thing).
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/1/2012 6:20:59 PM
Tall IQ2 Msg 2

Basic common sense knowledge in humans is mostly derived from experience, stored away in our giant brains,
with precious little built-in hard-wired instinct as many animals have.


I think we often overlook the instincts that guide humans, perhaps we just don’t take the time to recognize what it is we do ‘instinctually’ simply because we just do or follow our instincts. Consider ‘curiosity’, I think it would be hard to deny that curiosity occurs in all humans and it begins within months of our birth. As for why curiosity would be a good instinct to have evolved in humans, consider where we would be if we never questioned how we could make life better?

That’s just one example of something many people would not think of as an instinct.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/1/2012 6:21:57 PM
AnnB72

So, this was an interesting document (actually a few pages from a book written by a mechanical engineer who has obviously spent some time researching this subject and who has made a hypothesis of his own as it relates to time).

http://www.nariphaltan.org/time.pdf


I had a difficult time trying to follow what the author was projecting. Much of the explanation and definition of terms were simply referenced back to a previous chapter and filling in the blanks was most of my problem. I did get the feeling that the author was drawing conclusions based of a specific beginning point which also became the means to the end. This is the same kind of circular pattern I tend to see with intelligent design ideas. Then I got to the diagram, my suspicion seemed to be confirmed as the diagram did, in fact, present as circular and the author himself related how his idea equated with some Eastern belief systems that envision life as occurring in cyclical patterns.

I’m familiar with that concept in which the beginning from and return to designation is considered to be the source of UC, but in most cases the philosophy begins to break down when it becomes necessary to create terms and then define them to such a degree that it becomes no more than a creative venture into the mind of its author(s).

Of course I’m basing all that opinion on a short synopsis of the whole idea. Have you read further into this author’s theory? Can you describe any specific areas in which you agree with the author or areas you don’t agree and have a different idea? I’d be interested in what you have to add.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/1/2012 6:22:33 PM
IgorFrankensteen Msg 4

I'm going to need some clarification, in order to respond to this.

On my reading of the opening post, I see U.C. defined in one place, as though it is an artificially created database, while in another way, it is defined as an actual compilation of linked individual awarenesses. So I'm not sure which version of it you are talking about at any given time.



MY REPLY:
Thanks for asking for clarification. Let me try again starting with a definition of consciousness.

The following definition projects my own understanding of consciousness which, I admit, may be biased toward humans as there are still questions as to whether our understanding of consciousness extends (universally) to the rest of the animal kingdom thus UC, according to my definition, refers to the extent of which consciousness is a universal quality among the animal realm.

My definition is based more on science which has added to knowledge about consciousness. I expect it would need some adjustment in order to apply its defining characteristics to a more philosophical exploration of consciousness as a function of mind/body duality.

Consciousness:
1. Awareness of: our current environment via our senses and the thought processes (cognition) relevant to the incoming sensual data on which the mind is focused.
2. Awareness of active thought (cognitive functions) based on our recall of bits and pieces of information (memory)which have been previously acquired.

The questions I presented in the OP address some of the problems I have understanding how UC would function as an outside of body containment source of all data/information/knowledge, its mode of connection with mind, its functionality relevant to body, and the extent to which it may be accessible by all animals.





Surely, if U.C. is a database of human versions/observations of things, such as the description of a universal compilation of what we mean when we say "animal," then it is only accessible to others who can use human language and activity in order to look into it.

I actually think that "Universal Consciousness," and "construct" are mutually exclusive terms. Consciousness itself requires specific definition. I would suggest that if a being were a part of an even locally "universal" consciousness," that this would make it difficult, if not impossible for them to conceive of themselves as an individual.


The purpose for explaining the use of constructs was to show what we have learned, through science, about brain function, specifically in humans. In effect, any theories about an outside source of all knowledge, will have to contend with our accumulated science based knowledge of the brain and how it functions. Which led to the questions about UC that I posed in the OP.


Perhaps this U.C. is being confused with 'empathy,' or with the perception that an individual is ALSO a member of a group, and of a system, such that they knew that though they could act individually, that whatever they did would affect the entire group/system, and that they would know HOW their individual actions would affect the whole.

Based on what little I even suspect this is about, I can say for sure that I do not myself believe that a Universal Consciousness exists, in the sense that there is an intrinsic deep awareness between all individuals in any given group, which occurs independently of the individuals' efforts to participate in said group.


I have discussed ‘empathy’ with some others who think that a particularly empathic person has the ability to gain emotional information about individuals through some kind of outside source that interconnects all humans at that level, but it was not referred to as a universal consciousness. But I suppose some people would relate the two, for my purposes I was only considering the kind of knowledge that bring us innovative thoughts and ideas. In other words, some people think that there has never been anything NEW, though of, designed, or created by human thought alone.

When I hear others relate that idea, the black monolith in “2001: A Space Odyssey” always comes to mind.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/1/2012 6:27:41 PM
Bezoa

As for this universal database you can link to through spirituality, or whatnot, I'm not sure I believe in that.


Sorry but I just have to: Does that make you an agnostic? (oh the irony) PLEASE, just laugh, it's jsut meant as humor.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/1/2012 6:43:55 PM
Demigod1979 Msg 6

On that note, I think the internet is the best example of what a UC could be like. Blogs, tweets, going viral, memes and everything that happens on the internet, things that are beyond the control of any one individual, yet it's started by someone and influenced by everyone. It's like of like urban legends - no one knows who created it, yet it's passed on by people and is shaped as it goes along. Like the neurons that make up the brain, our collective actions might lead to a new form of collective consciousness. Currently the internet is the best we have but one day we might be able to hook each other up directly in a sort of science-based telepathy (e.g., communication implants that we can control by our thoughts). I don't know if this phenomenon really deserves it's own name though (and of course it'd be a purely human thing).


That reminded me of the Web Bot program. If I recall correctly, it was hyped as being able to predict certain trends simply by scanning the internet looking for certain key words that would begin appearing and their relative association with other terms. I think it was a couple years ago.

As far as the internet being equated to an outside source of all “realized” human knowledge – it does create a space we call ‘virtual reality’ and in some respects it could be considered a connection or mode of communication between the UC and the human potential to ‘realize’ greater knowledge. Just brainstorming here, not committed to the idea in any particular way.
 Bezoa
Joined: 7/2/2012
Msg: 12
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/2/2012 12:20:27 AM

Sorry but I just have to: Does that make you an agnostic? (oh the irony) PLEASE, just laugh, it's jsut meant as humor.


I had to check, but agnostic seems about right to how I see these things. I don't see the humorous part, i.e., not offended at all, just genuinely don't understand where the humor is.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/2/2012 4:29:22 AM
Is anybody really going to read this whole thing? I hope so. I put a lot of work into it.

Alright let's see what kind of science we can through at this thing.

Ok, first I would like to say that I am very pleased with the way this conversation is proceeding so far. I think that we should attempt to keep this conversation as scientific as possible. We shouldn't let the "potential" spiritual implications/nature of this subject influence our reasoning or our skepticism in any way, for instance:


I have discussed ‘empathy’ with some others who think that a particularly empathic person has the ability to gain emotional information about individuals through some kind of outside source that interconnects all humans at that level, but it was not referred to as a universal consciousness. But I suppose some people would relate the two, for my purposes I was only considering the kind of knowledge that bring us innovative thoughts and ideas.


I think that emotionalheat handled the above very well but the fact of the matter is that, unless we can figure out a way to scientifically test the validity of any potential empathic abilities a given person or group of people may have, the concept is entirely useless for our purposes here at this time. The best we can do is to file it away for future reference in light of new evidence.

"Some science potentially concerning "universal consciousness'":

Please approach terms like "Devine intellect" with a grain of salt:


Noetic Theory 

In traditional philosophy, noëtics (from the Greek ???t????, noetikos, "mental" from noein "to perceive with the mind" and nous "mind, understanding, intellect") is a branch of metaphysical philosophy concerned with the study of mind and intellect. Noetic doctrines include the doctrine of the agent/patient intellect (Aristotle, Averroes)[1] and the doctrine of the Divine Intellect (Plotinus).[2]

More recently the term "noetics" has been employed by several authors who write about consciousness, spirituality and cosmology.

Richard L. Amoroso, director of the Noetic Advanced Studies Institute, proposed a theory of noetics called Noetic Field Theory which centers on the idea that there exists an additional causal principle of purposefulness not found in ordinary matter but in fundamental cosmological principles of consciousness. He has suggested that thought and spirit are not, in fact, intangible, but are "Bose or photon-like" based aspects of the Unified Field,[3][4] meaning essentially that the mind can be quantified by formulae which describe quantum materials such as light. Amoroso claims that his noetic model is the first theory of any kind to explain qualia in physical terms.[5][6] In 2010, NASI partnered with Steriwave Quantum Computers, a limited liability British company, to develop a quantum computer prototype[7] based on "conscious quantum computing."[8]

The Institute of Noetic Sciences proposes noetic sciences as an alternative theory of "how beliefs, thoughts, and intentions affect the physical world."[9]

Noetic science, in the sense of the study of mind power, formed a motif of the bestselling novel The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown. According to the fictional Noetic science of the book, thoughts have mass (contrary to the idea that thoughts are weightless). As gravity affects all matter, thoughts do so as well.


Now I am sure that every one is going to think the following is very strange. But I think that we should reserve our skepticism for the research material:


The Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) was co-founded in 1973 by former astronaut Edgar Mitchell and investor Paul N. Temple to encourage and conduct research on noetic theory and human potentials.[1][2][3] Institute programs include "extended human capacities", "integral health and healing", and "emerging worldviews".

This research includes topics such as spontaneous remission, meditation, consciousness, alternative healing practices, consciousness-based healthcare, spirituality, human potential, psychic abilities and survival of consciousness after bodily death.[4]

Headquartered outside Petaluma, California, the organization is situated on a 200-acre (81 ha) campus that includes offices, a research laboratory, and a retreat center (originally the campus of World College West).[5] The institute does not grant educational degrees.


Dean Radin is senior scientist at IONS. One of his projects is:

The Global Consciousness Project:

The following videos go into some detail about what the global consciousness project entails:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itQMALL__bE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnvJfkI5NVc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Moving on.

The research of Dr. Masaru Emoto:

While his find are extremely fascinating, Unfortunately, Dr. Emoto's experimental procedures were not flawless. His experiments need to be conducted again to exacting scientific standards. The following is a peer review of Dr. Emoto's research:

http://is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/

The next is an excerpt from the scientific exploratory film "What Th Bleep Do We Know?", intended to briefly familiarize everyone with the concept:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWAuc9GIvFo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Moving on.

The hundredth monkey effect:


Hundredth monkey effect

Not to be confused with Infinite monkey theorem.
The hundredth monkey effect is a supposed phenomenon in which a learned behavior spreads rapidly from one group of monkeys to all related monkeys once a critical number of initiates is reached. By generalization it means the instantaneous spreading of an idea or ability to the remainder of a population once a certain portion of that population has heard of the new idea or learned the new ability by some unknown process currently beyond the scope of science. The story behind this supposed phenomenon originated with Lawrence Blair and Lyall Watson in the mid-to-late 1970s, who claimed that it was the observation of Japanese scientists. One of the primary factors in the promulgation of the story is that many authors quote secondary, tertiary or post-tertiary sources who have themselves misrepresented the original observations.[1]



In 1985, Elaine Myers re-examined the original published research in “The Hundredth Monkey Revisited” in the journal In Context. In her review she found that the original research reports by the Japan Monkey Center in Vol. 2, 5, and 6 of the journal Primates are insufficient to support Watson’s story. In short, she is suspicious of the existence of a hundredth monkey phenomenon; the published articles describe how the sweet potato washing behavior gradually spread through the monkey troupe and became part of the set of learned behaviors of young monkeys, but she doesn’t agree that it can serve as an evidence for the existence of a critical number at which the idea suddenly spread to other islands.

However, the story as told by Watson and Keyes is popular among New Age authors and personal growth gurus and has become an urban legend and part of New Age mythology. Also, Rupert Sheldrake has cited that a phenomenon like the hundredth monkey effect would be an evidence of Morphic fields bringing about non-local effects in consciousness and learning. As a result, the story has also become a favorite target of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and was used as the title essay in The Hundredth Monkey: And Other Paradigms of the Paranormal published by them in 1990.

In his book Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer explains how the urban legend started, was popularised, and has been discredited.


So has the HM effect truly been discredited or was it a problem with inadequate experimental procedures like with Dr. Emoto's experiments. Anyone interested in taking this one on?

Moving on.

Quantum Consciousness:

The following is a scientific paper that approaches consciousness from a quantum perspective, which relates to my idea that, if there is a universal consciousness, it functions at the quantum level or lower.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchor.html

I am not a biologist so I do not fully understand all the concepts involved with this paper. What we need is a biologist (Demigod perhaps) to take a look at this paper and brake it down into layman's terms for us so that we can see if these idea can in anyway be attributed to a universal consciousness, so that, if they can, we can devise experiments in order to show how.

Moving on.

The ideomotor effect:

The following is an experiment that I have devised. My contention here is that the ideomotor effect has not been properly scientifically tested, and as such may be used as a blanket "effect" to categorize various phenomenon that it does not necessarily apply to.

One such phenomenon, in which the ideomotor effect has not been properly scientifically tested, is the Ouija board. It has simply been labeled as "functioning by the ideomotor effect" without any kind of definitive scientific experimentation.

My hypothesis is as follows:

The Ouija board has been mislabeled with the ideomotor effect. The Ouija board actually functions by a resonance telepathic/telekinetic link generated by the two (or more) participants using the Ouija.

This hypothesis is based on some experiments I conducted in my early twenties in which I observed the following:

A subject can mentally take control of the Ouija pointer by mentally concentrating on a desired response to be given by the Ouija board. This is significant for the following reasons:

In an experiment involving two subjects, a question is asked, for instance:

How tall is the Empire State building?

One of the subjects (in private) is asked to mentally concentrate on the answer to this question as being "two feet tall"

When the question is asked during the Ouija session the response from the Ouija board to the specified question is "two feet tall". 

This effect works invariable, and shows us two important things:

Mental control can be exerted over the pointer.

The unaware part (unaware of the question out come) is not moving the pointer.

I personally devised and participated in these experiments. So, for my part, I know that I was not consciously moving the pointer, as well, due to the experiment parameters, I know that the other participant was not consciously moving the pointer.

Now, this, by itself, does not invalidate the ideomotor effect, since the ideomotor effect Is said to function by the participants subconscious. Which brings me to my second observation- which, incidentally, needs to be more accurately tested, for which I have devised an experiment designed to do this.

My second observation is that the Ouija pointer seems to be moving with more force than is being applied by the experiment participants.

In my experiments the participants were asked to keep contact with the pointer as light as possible. In spite of this the pointer seemed to move with speed far exceeding the force being applied to it by the experiment participants.

In response to these observation I have devised an experiment to test the amount of force being applied to the Ouija pointer by the experiment participants. If the force bing applied by the participants is equal to the force with which the pointer is moving, then we can be sure that the ideomotor effect is accurate. If the force being applied by the participants is less than the force with which the pointer is moving then these results would invalidate the ideomotor effect and, subsequently validate my hypothesis.

Experiment parameters (peer review requested):

Necessary equipment:

1. Ouija board and pointer
2. Two gram scales
3. Two pressure plates and wiring
4. Video camera
5. Camera tripod
6. Two yard sticks
7. Large table
8. Two participants

Ok, so, the first thing that needs to be done is to dismantle the gram scales and rewire them to function with our pressure plates. Then we need to attach the pressure plates to each side of the Ouija pointer (usually hart shaped).

After this is done we the need to take a base line reading of how much pressure it takes to move the Ouija pointer on the surface of the Ouija board. We need to know exactly how much force it takes to move the pointer. So we set up our experiment.

The Ouija board is placed on the table. One of the yard sticks is placed on the table lined up with one of the sides of the Ouija board. The other yard stick is then lined up at a right angle with one of the other sides of the Ouija board.

The camera is the assembled to the tripod and the tripod is then positioned over the Ouija board with the camera pointing directly down at the center of the Ouija board (if any one has a better idea about how to position the the camera without the tripod, be my guest). Also, it is necessary for the gram scales to be in the view of the camera.

To take the base line reading for "applied force" turn the camera on (record). Have your two subjects place their fingertips on the pressure plates that were attached to the pointer earlier. Next have one of your subjects push across the Ouija board while the other subject applies as little pressure as possible to the pointer. While pushing the pointer across the board it is necessary to get a sustained reading of pressure on the gram scale for at least one continuous second, for instance: 3.7 grams for one continuous second.

With the data we collected from the camera we can then calculate the force applied to the pointer by pressure/speed very simply. We use the camera footage to calculate the speed by measuring the distance the pointer travels (using the yard sticks) in one second. The formula for this is very simple: distance times time gives us speed (dt=s)- in this hypothetical we'll say the speed is three inches per second. Then we apply our pressure measurement: 3.7 grams. This gives us our final force measurement of 3.7 grams at 3 inches per second.

We then repeat this proses with the subject who wasn't pushing before now pushing and the subject who was pushing before now applying as little pressure as possible, and then take a reading for applied force from this.

We then take several readings alternating between which subject is pushing. And after enogh data is collected we then take an average of the applied force (I am not going to explain how to take an average).

Ok, now all that is left is to perform the experiment, Take the measurements of applied force from the experiment, and compare them to your baseline readings.

Man that was a lot more to explain than I thought it was going to be.

So, why haven't I performed this experiment myself? The answer to that is two fold.

1. I am poor and cannot afford the necessary materials to conduct the experiment.

2. I have a very very limited knowledge of electrical engineering, which would be necessary to rewire the gram scales the the new pressure plates.

So, this experiment is up for grabs to anyone willing to perform it. There is some incentive to performing this experiment as well. If someone were to prove my hypothesis, I do believe that this experiment would qualify for the JREF million dollar prize for paranormal proof. I would only try to appeal to the humanity of anyone who performs this experiment, and ends up with positive results, and wins the JREF, and ask that person to remember where the experiment idea came from and also that I am suffering in poverty (quite literally).

So, I guess that that's about it. I hope everybody made it this far.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/2/2012 5:09:13 AM
So I thought that I would port over some of the posts that started this discussion, from the "Mankinds True Purpose" thread. So that they can be considered here. One of these quotes is from JustDukky. I hope you don't mind Dukky. 


CressB said:

How can you be so sure that there isn't some grander purpose for life.

Perhaps the chemistry of evolution is an inherent property of the universe an "intelligent design" so to speak, and our purpose here is to ask "why" and gain an objective understanding of the universe, in order to attchive, some intelligent goal that is as of yet unknown to us?

I am strongly drawn to the idea that there is only one consciousness in the universe (this consciousness is the initial quantum observer of all interactions and is naturally defuse throughout the universe) and that life is a mechanism designed to "concentrate" this "universal consciousness". One could think of it as a temporal gravity well (for lack of a better term) and the human brain is capable of attchiveing criticality in the form of sentience/being self aware. Meaning that the only thing that makes us diferent from each other is the individual chemical makeup of our bodies, but we all draw off the same universal consciousness. To put it in dramatic terms we are all god (the universe) concentrated to a higher level awareness and with the ability to manipulate god (ourselves) because god (us) is trying to figure something out. 

This is as far as i have gotten on the philosophical side of this concept, so far, It's an interesting hypothesis, with some difficult/complex science behind it.

I don't know if it is correct but it sure is very interesting. I mean come on should a collection of atoms really be able to understand that it is a collection of atoms. We are missing something here.

I'll probably catch hell for the above, that's why I never talk to anyone about it.



JustDukky said:

"would you say that viruses also have a link to the "universal consciousness"?"

I would. Further than that I would include rocks, clouds, protons electrons and quarks as being part of universal consciousness. Look at it this way; all our physical laws and the things they affect resemble nothing so much as a transfer of information. What are the essential differences between a transfer of momentum between one particle and another, or the effect of one gravitational mass on another and, say the electrochemical spark of synapse? In all cases there must be an "awareness" of the "other" by the "self."

What could be a better definition for consciousness than awareness? The only difference between elementary particle interactions and say chemical or biological interactions might be their order of complexity.

If we concede that a human is conscious, then we must concede that individual neurons are the biological "elementary particles" of consciousness upon which that consciousness is based. Synapse then, is only an electrochemical transfer of information. Would you say that a neuron is conscious? If not, at what point on the slippery slope of consciousness does a human become a conscious being?

I will grant you that the idea of a conscious universe is not scientific and quite probably an unprovable assertion, but can you honestly say it doesn't make logical sense?



CressB said:

"CressB - can you further identify the kind of consciousness you are planning on researching, like what properties or characteristics it might have. What kind of testing would you use, for example, would you use technology or other tools, or would you be using reasoning like inductive or deductive? The answers to these questions would help direct the discussion."


What is needed is a better understanding of time. This is how dukky's information exchange is occurring and being directed, at below the quantum level. In order to gain a better understanding of time, we need a better understanding of how time is related to the dimensional structure of the universe. If we think of time as an expanding bubble (instead of the universe as expanding three dimensionally) and we think of space and matter (not mass) as flat two dimensional information, then we could imagine this information (we will call it space/matter) being over-laid on top of this expanding time bubble. This gives us our curved universe. Now with this "space/matter time over-lay" you could think of space/matter as bits of information (ones and zeros - where space is represented as either a one or a zero and matter is the opposite) and these bits are individualized and there interactions are mediated by time (meaning time is between all interactions). Gravity occurs when we get an interaction between space bits and matter bits (which is why gravity is week). Things like electromagnetism and other energetic phenomena occur when we get an interaction between two matter bits. And dark energy is what occurs when we get an interaction between two space bits, and subsequently, this interaction drives the expansion of our time bubble, and in turn, the expansion of the time bubble is what gives us our forward arrow in time. Now we have our observer/mediator (time) and our third dimension (also time) but at this point everything is still just flat information.

I don't know what gives time its property as an observer/mediator. At this point it is beyond my comprehension (I need access to more science). I also don't know why animal brains (or life - all the way up the chain from the most simple form of life capable of performing a function) are capable of focusing the the observer properties of time into awareness. The only further thing that I can deduce, is that focused awareness observing the universe seems to give the universe it's appearance of volume; in other words, when no focused awareness is observing, the three dimensions are there, but collapsed into a pure information state. In this state the universe acts as though those dimensions are there, at all but the most fundamental level, and this in turn gives us "interference" when no focused awareness is observing, and, conversely we get "wave-function collapse" when a focused awareness is observing.

In audition to the to the above hypothesis I also have a new dimensional model which expands on the standard X,Y,Z model and is capable of predicting fundamental particle behavior (such as quantum gravity). Also this model is responsible for the development of the above described hypothesis. At this time I am not willing to part with this model.

So I guess the simple answer to your question would be: I need access to more science.


Perhaps we can use these quotes as a base to work out a functioning definition for "universal consciousness"?
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/2/2012 5:36:50 AM

On that note, I think the internet is the best example of what a UC could be like. Blogs, tweets, going viral, memes and everything that happens on the internet, things that are beyond the control of any one individual, yet it's started by someone and influenced by everyone. It's like of like urban legends - no one knows who created it, yet it's passed on by people and is shaped as it goes along. Like the neurons that make up the brain, our collective actions might lead to a new form of collective consciousness. Currently the internet is the best we have but one day we might be able to hook each other up directly in a sort of science-based telepathy (e.g., communication implants that we can control by our thoughts). I don't know if this phenomenon really deserves it's own name though (and of course it'd be a purely human thing).


While I do think that the above is an interesting approach to the idea, I would suggest that we should test to see if human beings possess the ability to access the universal consciousness (if it exists) with the natural equipment we already possess (i.e. mind and body) before we start turning ourselfs into cyborgs (I just don't want to end up turning humanity into Star Trek's "The Borg").

There has been some interesting research, I heard about not to long ago, into simulating autism in mentally healthy human beings by externally energeticaly stimulating certain areas of the brain. This would make it possible for humans to enter an "autistic mode", in order to perform complex problem solving when necessary. If anyone is familiar with the Japanese animation (anime) "Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex" this idea is further xplored in this series. There is a lot of very good science in this show, especially cybernetics.

Unfortunately, I do not remember any of the names involved in this research.

Also, I am open to the idea that if a universal consciousness does exist it may be necessary to cybernetialy augment the human mind in order to take full advantage of it.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/2/2012 7:55:55 AM
Bezoa [I had to check, but agnostic seems about right to how I see these things. I don't see the humorous part, i.e., not offended at all, just genuinely don't understand where the humor is.

My apologies to you Bezoa. It seems that some popular threads lately somehow seemed to evolve, or sometimes devolve, to a debate about the definition of agnostic, theist, athiest and so on. It wasn't cool of me to expect everyone to understand. I do appreciate your contributions and I will try to be more thoughtful.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/2/2012 8:19:01 AM
While I do think that the above is an interesting approach to the idea, I would suggest that we should test to see if human beings possess the ability to access the universal consciousness (if it exists) with the natural equipment we already possess (i.e. mind and body) before we start turning ourselfs into cyborgs (I just don't want to end up turning humanity into Star Trek's "The Borg").

I don't know if I would draw that conclusion, I was just saying the internet could act as a form of collective consciousness for humanity (that is, the internet IS the UC).

Not to be a downer, but I think any concept of a consciousness existing "out there" is kind of like a religious idea. I think it stems from the fact that we don't understand consciousness too well at the moment, and whenever we don't understand something we tend to ascribe transcendent qualities to it. I mean, all sorts of elaborate and mystic explanations were used for spontaneous combustion (everything from ball lightning to quantum anomalies to kundalini) before science discovered how it was done. I fear the same thing is being done for consciousness.

There has been some interesting research, I heard about not to long ago, into simulating autism in mentally healthy human beings by externally energeticaly stimulating certain areas of the brain. This would make it possible for humans to enter an "autistic mode", in order to perform complex problem solving when necessary. If anyone is familiar with the Japanese animation (anime) "Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex" this idea is further xplored in this series. There is a lot of very good science in this show, especially cybernetics.

I've watched Ghost in the Shell, although for entertainment purposes only.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/2/2012 8:47:42 AM
Demi:


Not to be a downer, but I think any concept of a consciousness existing "out there" is kind of like a religious idea.


Well, people once believed that the world was flat, that maned flight was impossible, that the sound barrier would never be broken, and that man would never be able to travel to the moon. The truth of these matters is not learned by those who insist that it is impossible. The truth is discovered by those who insist and persist that they are possible.

Is it possible that the idea is incorrect... Yes. But we will never know the truth until someone disides to investigate the matter.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/2/2012 10:24:28 AM

Is anybody really going to read this whole thing? I hope so. I put a lot of work into it.


Absolutely, in fact I found it fascinating. I have to deal with the carrots and tomatoes I have harvested this past week, but I can’t wait to get back and follow all the links in your post. And I also want to look deeper into noetic philosophy & science. Some of the related material is familiar to me, so I may have some archived material from some previous philosophic adventure I took.

But I certainly appreciate the time involved with putting together the post so I wanted to make a few general comments.


He (Richard L. Amoroso) has suggested that thought and spirit are not, in fact, intangible, but are "Bose or photon-like" based aspects of the Unified Field,[3][4] meaning essentially that the mind can be quantified by formulae which describe quantum materials such as light. Amoroso claims that his noetic model is the first theory of any kind to explain qualia in physical terms.[5][6] In 2010, NASI partnered with Steriwave Quantum Computers, a limited liability British company, to develop a quantum computer prototype[7] based on "conscious quantum computing."[8]

The Institute of Noetic Sciences proposes noetic sciences as an alternative theory of "how beliefs, thoughts, and intentions affect the physical world."[9]

Noetic science, in the sense of the study of mind power, formed a motif of the bestselling novel The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown. According to the fictional Noetic science of the book, thoughts have mass (contrary to the idea that thoughts are weightless). As gravity affects all matter, thoughts do so as well.


I think we all try to relate new ideas to our current experiential knowledge. Body language and changes in verbal cues alert the perceptive person to a higher awareness of a situation. In the scientific community we consider those cues as the objective factors that account for a person’s higher awareness and because it’s extremely hard to rule out the extraneous effects of our senses, we accept a very low percentage of error for that fact in experiments. But we also know that experiencing stress produces particular brain activity and in some cases the general type of stress can be related to particular areas of the brain. Ourbrain performs in similar way while we are thinking or focused on communicating. So we have to wonder; if qualia can produce a effect on the individual creating it and (accounting for the error of objective cues) also effect other people involved in communication, mightn’t the effort of thought production include matter at or below the quantum level, as described through CressB’s post?


The Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) was co-founded in 1973 by former astronaut Edgar Mitchell and investor Paul N. Temple to encourage and conduct research on noetic theory and human potentials.[1][2][3] Institute programs include "extended human capacities", "integral health and healing", and "emerging worldviews".

This research includes topics such as spontaneous remission, meditation, consciousness, alternative healing practices, consciousness-based healthcare, spirituality, human potential, psychic abilities and survival of consciousness after bodily death.[4]


Currently, much of the medical health field subscribes to the biopsychosocial model of medicine which incorporates biological, psychological, and social influences to create a holistic approach to medicine. We’ve learned that health is multidimensional and any one of the three influences on health effects positive overall health. As mentioned, certain types of stress at certain levels can create a negative health situation, a placebo can be more effective than the actual medical treatment, and social environments can add to or detract from positive health.

About including ‘spirit’ and consciousness survival after physical death – I would suggest leaving these out for now. In terms of thought and qualia, there is at least a vocabulary that can be related to the physical, but attempting to define spirit at the same time as we delve into the prospect of thought as matter, could turn this discussion into a religious debate as happens in every debate of mind/body dualism.

About The Hundredth Monkey (HM) idea. Human history suggests that HM theory is not at work. This is the reason why, in ancient times (barring God mandated destruction of biblical proportions) most conquests required population and even cultural ‘incorporation’ (as opposed to assimilation). This was one of the reasons why the Greeks & Romans were so tolerant of many belief systems. In addition, war created the need for mechanical/technical advancements, which a wide diversity of population were able to use to better their lives. In the U.S. we can see that incorporating a wide cultural diversity of people have greatly expanded our knowledge. All of this was accomplished by direct contact – suggesting that certain agricultural advancements occurred in different regions at the same time cannot rule out direct contact. So at the moment I would disqualify HM as there appear to be too few examples in the primate populations of the world to quantify further exploration.


CressB’s Experiment

Man that was a lot more to explain than I thought it was going to be


I had 8 weeks to research, formulate, and design a research proposal fit for peer review submission – boy do I know what you mean. Fortunately, it was for a class and I was spared the embarrassment of having to face the real peer review process.

In that class, one student proposed a research project related to communication facilitation. Facilitation consists of a ‘facilitator’, a person who holds the hand of disabled subject (In similar fashion to holding the pointer of Ouija board) over the keyboard attached to a computer. In essence, it is suppose to work the same way as the Ouija board. After the presentation during the question period, it was asked why the experimenter chose NOT to blindfold the facilitator. The response of the experimenter was “because it doesn’t work that way, the facilitator need to have access to all sensual data. Blocking any portion of access would block the mental connection between the facilitator and the subject.” The experimenter was a science student only a few classes away from a BS degree.

So I would like to ask you CressB – have you considered a blind test? For example, we should assume that most well-rounded individuals, one way or another, have been exposed to or directly experienced using the Ouija board. So it would not be enough to blindfold the individuals but I have an alternate suggestion. There are great advantages to proceeding with my suggestions, first you could do these tests without all the expensive electronics and from these tests you could produce a hypothesis that has been grounded in your first test results. This could even get you a grant to proceed with further tests.

I would suggest altering the design of the Ouija board. If it is altered, it required thought and if thought produced matter, then that matter is part of the Universal Consciousness and is accessible. (correct?)

Then have a physical Ouija board that is blank. Conduct the experiments (asking the questions).

Put the video that was created on a computer and use a computerized overlay of the altered Ouija design to determine the accuracy of the answers.

Then use a computerized overlay of the original Ouija design to compare answer accuracy with the altered Ouija design.

If the statics support the hypothesis that (altering a Ouija board design, required thought and thought produces matter, then that matter is part of the Universal Consciousness and is accessible.) then you are on a green light and should take it further, if not retain the null and either correct the problems or try another path.

I will make an effort to review the links you have provided, it all sounds interesting, thanks.
 AnnB72
Joined: 7/2/2012
Msg: 20
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/2/2012 11:00:35 AM
Well, it seems to me he is suggesting a 'higher consciousness' that we are all a part of and have access to. I haven't read the rest of his book, but I'm lead to suppose that in chapter 2 he discussed what he imagined the higher consciousness (higher dimensions) is. In religion it is considered the Godhead. Scientifically, it could be called the Unified Field.

I liked his interpretation of bringing Time into the picture, though I'm not yet convinced that traveling back in time is an impossibility. We just don't know enough about dimensions to say that definitively.

Unfortunately, when you discuss Universal Consciousness you do have to consider that what people term God, or religion, will play a part. However, maybe not as God is traditionally thought of as a single individual by human definition. If you solve UC, you will have incorporated science and religion. Mathmatics and spiritual. If that ever happens, there will be need to define it. No need to separate its components into right or wrong, all will be unified.

In a way, you actually do need to consider what happens after death, as well. It is part of the theory. The notion that we all share atoms through numerous lifetimes - that atoms are not destroyed, but transformed into something else - makes me wonder if death is not also a transformation; a re-newel of energy. If UC includes energy, it will have to include spiritual energy. I don't believe the universe wastes energy.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 21
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/2/2012 11:17:26 AM
Okay, first of all to this:



The questions I presented in the OP address some of the problems I have understanding how UC would function as an outside of body containment source of all data/information/knowledge, its mode of connection with mind, its functionality relevant to body, and the extent to which it may be accessible by all animals.



I have, over my many years, become convinced that there is no Universal Consciousness, such as what seems to be described here. That is, there is no naturally occurring, independent consciousness sink (like a heat sink), or data bank, into which entities thoughts and experiences are naturally deposited, and from which other entities can draw. The story of the 100th monkey phenomenon is an excellent illustration of how I think that such a misunderstanding of what I believe is actually true, can evolve.

My own definition/understanding of consciousness is, that most people have continuity of awareness of self at the core of their recognition of that word. Thus, most people appear to believe that consciousness does not exist in an otherwise apparently living entity which shows no indication that it is aware of change, or of cause and effect. Therefore, most people would recognize, say, a dog who learns to stay away from the person who hits them, and to hang around with the person who feeds them, as being therefore a conscious entity. But a plant, which appears to grow just fine, whether someone chops pieces of it off or not, would not be conscious. I wont get onto my own ideas about those examples, by the way, suffice it to say I am not 100% in agreement with the details, they are just illustrations.

I am, on the other hand, convinced that there is more to perception than most current scientific authority is willing to admit to. Specifically, I think that there is a likelihood that non-verbal, non visual communication can and does occur between avowedly electrically active beings, such as humans, as a natural result of the known behavior of electrical phenomenon.

The above mentioned experiments with OuiJa boards are a good illustration of this. I am not convinced at all, that the planchette itself, is what is being influenced by the participants. Thus, though I downright YEARN to have telekinetic powers (especially when the remote has become too remote) , I have seen as yet, no evidence that such exists. However, what I am convinced can occur, which would explain all the described phenomena, is that the electrical thought patterns of participants can influence one another on a subconscious level.

Since it is also well established that most humans do NOT have 100% conscious control over all of our muscles at all times (hence the relative success of things like lie detectors), no matter how earnestly participants attempt to cooperate with admonitions not to permit themselves to move the planchette, the simple belief that they are required to have that it WILL move, is enough for some portion of their nervous system/ musculature to over rule that, and effect force on the thing.

After that, the natural electrical behaviors of the participant NOT touching the planchette, could, due to the nature of the experiment, interact with the minds of the people who ARE touching it, such that the muscles of the touchers would cause the thing to move where the non-toucher wanted it to. Not mind control, by any means. More like the way that hypnotism usually works, where the subject cooperates with the suggestions, because it does not consciously perceive them to be in dramatic opposition to their perception of life.

Back to the 100th monkey, and the data bank.

Our studies of the past already include instances of genocides, of both human and non-human creatures. When those have occurred, there has been no evidence that ANY of the knowledge of the entities lost, was retained. All of it had to be rediscovered later by others, if at all. Hence, I have no faith that any independent learning database exists.

However, since I do believe that electrical properties of consciousness can result in more interaction than is accomplished through standard senses (vision, hearing, touch), I can easily understand why someone might think or perceive that some consciousness does exist, which is outside of themselves and of others. It's like radio waves, essentially. We accept that radio waves exist, outside of the devices that create and use them. To believe that a Universal Consciousness exist, which would do so in spite of the termination of the participants in it, would be akin to believing that even if you burn down the TV stations broadcasting facilities, that you would still be able to see your favorite shows.

As for my suspicions about the 100th monkey: I suspect that the ability of the researchers to recognize and control all of the observed monkeys ability to communicate and learn from each other, was far more limited than they realized. Human researchers are notorious for their egos getting in the way of their scientific discipline, and for their assumptions based upon misunderstanding past research, causing them to make huge leaps of stupidity. In other words, I suggest that by the time the 100th monkey learned the behavior, that the researchers had already lost the ability to prevent the transmission of the understandings to many other monkeys, through very normal means.

I am reminded here, of very old experiments which once were thought to prove that spontaneous generation of life occurred: the "scientists" discovered that if filthy rags were left in a corner of their establishment, with edible garbage and moisture nearby, that mice would spring into existence amongst the rags.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/2/2012 11:22:06 AM
Well, people once believed that the world was flat, that maned flight was impossible, that the sound barrier would never be broken, and that man would never be able to travel to the moon. The truth of these matters is not learned by those who insist that it is impossible. The truth is discovered by those who insist and persist that they are possible.

Is it possible that the idea is incorrect... Yes. But we will never know the truth until someone disides to investigate the matter.

I'm just pointing out that this is typically what we tend to do when we can't explain something scientifically.

I used the example of spontaneous human combustion for a reason. This was a very mysterious phenomenon that seemed to defy all the laws of nature. How could a human body, consisting of 75% water, burn down to ashes (including the bones, which aren't even completely destroyed in a crematorium with temperatures up to 1000 degrees) and not burn down the house or surrounding objects? In the absense of a satisfactory scientific explanation a whole range of mystical/psudoscientific possibilities were proposed. Some people thought it was ball lightning that is constituted in a human body, other thought it had to do with quantum events causing a chain reaction, some thought it was cold fusion happening in the body, others thought it was ley lines (new age concept) because many of these events appeared to happen on straight lines on a map. However, in the end, the actual cause was far more mundane (the "wick effect").

If the case of spontaneous combustion can teach us anything is that we should be wary of mystical or fantastic explanations for something we currently do not understand. When/if an explanation is found, it usually turns out to be far more mundane than what people often imagine. This is not to say that they cannot be wrong, but I think we should look for more earthly explanations first.

So I would like to ask you CressB – have you considered a blind test? For example, we should assume that most well-rounded individuals, one way or another, have been exposed to or directly experienced using the Ouija board. So it would not be enough to blindfold the individuals but I have an alternate suggestion. There are great advantages to proceeding with my suggestions, first you could do these tests without all the expensive electronics and from these tests you could produce a hypothesis that has been grounded in your first test results. This could even get you a grant to proceed with further tests.

I'm curious if you've ever watched Penn & Teller's Bullshit. In one episode they actually did what you're proposing - they blindfolded people using a ouija board. The participants moved the pointer precisely as they did when they weren't blindfolded, but what they didn't know was that the experimenters had actually turned the board around, and their hands were actually going to the opposite side of the board! Basically, they were making a conscious decision to move the pointer, based on what they thought was there.

Your story about the science student also seems very similar to what ouija board users say, which is that they cannot be blindfolded since the "spirits" need access to the medium (that is, the senses). This was also covered in the Bullshit episode (YouTube should have the entire episode, do a google search for "penn and teller bullshit ouija board").
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/2/2012 10:39:36 PM
I’ve spent the last few hours wandering through the links that CressB provided and I got caught up at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) website. http://www.noetic.org/about/overview/

In particular there was an IONS blog by Cassandra Vieten announcing a big event for the Psi world. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published the research paper by Daryl Ben that
presents evidence from nine experiments involving over 1000 subjects suggesting that events in the future may influence events in the past – a concept known as "retrocausation.”
My reaction was…. WHAT? My field of study is psychology, naturally I was curious, why? Well as Vieten explains:
To begin, Bem is not just any psychologist; he is one of the most prominent psychologists in the world. And JPSP is not just any journal but sits atop the psychology journal heap; the article, especially given its premise, was subjected to a rigorous peer-review (where scientific colleagues critique the article and decide whether it is worthy of publication). Also, Bem intentionally adopted well-accepted research protocols in the studies, albeit with a few key twists, that are simple and replicable (they don't require lots of special equipment, and the analyses are straightforward).


It was very interesting. Here is the reference if anyone has access to an on-line library that includes the JPSP.

Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 100(3), 407-425. doi:10.1037/a0021524

OR you can get the beta copy here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8290411/FeelingFuture.pdf

That was after I had gone through the research of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose:

•Orchestrated Reduction Of Quantum Coherence In Brain Microtubules: A Model For Consciousness?
Stuart Hameroff & Roger Penrose, In: Toward a Science of Consciousness - The First Tucson Discussions and Debates, eds. Hameroff, S.R., Kaszniak, A.W. and Scott, A.C., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 507-540 (1996)
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchor.html

As I was reading through the Hameroff paper and applying what I know of neurology and biology and the foreign language of quantum science (at which I am not proficient) I was constructing a scenario in which a particular series of events in which time, place and state of mind might set the stage for quick, rather short term, precognition that is often overlooked or shrugged off as coincidence.

AH but there was more reading to do so I “shrugged it off” and moved on. Then I found the Bem study which “coincidentally” happens to be all about short term precognition. To be honest my only thought about the similarity between the two papers was that I was pleased with myself thinking I must have understood something about the Hameroff paper despite my illiteracy in quantum science.
Then I came to this thread very tired but I had said I intended to come back and comment after I have completed further research and I intended only to post the information about the Bem article tonight and respond to other posts further tomorrow. BUT after I read Demigod Msg: 22, I KNEW I had to respond to it.


I'm curious if you've ever watched Penn & Teller's Bullshit. In one episode they actually did what you're proposing - they blindfolded people using a ouija board. The participants moved the pointer precisely as they did when they weren't blindfolded, but what they didn't know was that the experimenters had actually turned the board around, and their hands were actually going to the opposite side of the board! Basically, they were making a conscious decision to move the pointer, based on what they thought was there.

Your story about the science student also seems very similar to what ouija board users say, which is that they cannot be blindfolded since the "spirits" need access to the medium (that is, the senses). This was also covered in the Bullshit episode (YouTube should have the entire episode, do a google search for "penn and teller bullshit ouija board").


Wow, where have I been, I’ve never hear of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit, so I checked it out FUNNY and then it hit me: What if I’ve just experienced that particular series of events in which time, place and state of mind might set the stage for quick, rather short term, precognition that is often overlooked or shrugged off as coincidence.?

First I told about an experience I had in class involving another student.
Then I suggested a simpler test for the Ouija board (I thought it was a good idea, obviously not quite as simple as a blindfold and turning the board the other way) .
Then I read the Hameroff paper and drew a conclusion through my illiterate view of quantum science that happen to fit perfectly with the next paper I read by Bem.
Finally I come back here and find that my classmate story and my Ouija board suggestion are about to be fed back to me (by some very funny people) via youtube.

Well at least I’m ending the day laughing - what do you all think? Coincidence or Precognition thanks to quantum physics or is there universal consciousness at work? At the moment I’m thinking, I’m just really tired.

Goodnight!
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/3/2012 5:02:30 AM
So, questions about my experiment proposal for the Ouija board by emotionalheate and demigod:

The blind fold test:

Yes I am aware of the blind fold test. I am also aware (long before you suggested it) that pen and teller did an episode about Ouija boards and ideomotor effect. Unfortunately  the blindfold test is not applicable to what I am testing for and I will explain why. The idea behind the blindfold is to test for spirits. In the blind fold test the subjects first perform a Ouija session without blindfolds, then, after the initial session, the subjects are then blindfolded and the Ouija board is then (with out the subjects knowledge) faced in the opposite direction, so that the letters on the Ouija are now facing right-side-up for the subject they were priviously facing up-side-down for. When the subjects perform the second session, instead of moving to the appropriate letters, to sell out the answers to any proposed questions, the pointer instead moves to where the appropriate letters would have been if the Ouija board had not faced in the opposite direction, around without the subjects knowledge.

So the above test is great for testing for spirits for the following reasons:

1. Since spirits (external to our subjects) had no problem seeing the board during the first Ouija session (and guided the hands of our subjectjust fine then) then external spirits should have no trouble seeing the board and guiding the of our subjects while our subjects are blindfolded. From this we can infer ther external spirits are not responsible for the movement of the Ouija pointer (planchette, I heate that word though)

2. since we know that the subjects were aware of the placement of the letters on the Ouija board, from having viewed the board during the first Ouija session, we can deduce that, during second session, the reason why the pointer returns to the places where the proper letters should have been, necessary to answer any questions, is due to the subconscious memories, possessed the subject, of the letter placement during the first session. In simple language the movement of the Ouija pointer is being guided by the subjects' subconscious.

Are you still with me so far?

Now all of this is grate and it tells us a lot as well it also completely disproves the idea that external spitits are moving the Ouija pointer; howevere, if you read my hypothesis (in which it was plainly stated) I am testing for external spirits. I am testing for "telepathy/Telekinesis", which, if they exist, would be being generated, not by any external influence, but by the very minds of our subjects involved in the experiment. Also, if it is indeed telepathy/Telekinesis that is responsible for moving the Ouija pointer, then we can infer that, since the subject are unaware of possessing any telepathic/telekinetic abilities, then these abilities must be functioning at a subconscious level if they are present.

So now one can see the dilemma with the blindfold test. The is not adequate to destinguish between the ideomotor effect (shuttle muscle movements controled by the subconscious) and a telakenetic influence, upon the Ouija pointer, generated by the subjects mind and at a subconscious level.

So the next question will be "what proof do you have of a telekinetic influence". This was also explained when I first explained my experiments in "msg 13". In my initial experiments I observed what seemed to be extra force being exerted on the Ouija pointer that was not being physically applied by the participants.

If you want more details I suggest you reread my explanations of my experiments.

So now it should be quite apparent why it was necessary for me to devise the new experiment, laid out in "msg 13", in order to replace the old, inadequate experiment (the blindfold test). As well it should also be apparent that my experiment is superior in every way, and by testing directly for "applied force", to the pointer, we can produce definitive test results the will one and for all completely settle the question of whether or not the ideomotor is at play where the Ouija board is concerned, or the contentions of my hypothesis.


I'm just pointing out that this is typically what we tend to do when we can't explain something scientifically.

I used the example of spontaneous human combustion for a reason. This was a very mysterious phenomenon that seemed to defy all the laws of nature. How could a human body, consisting of 75% water, burn down to ashes (including the bones, which aren't even completely destroyed in a crematorium with temperatures up to 1000 degrees) and not burn down the house or surrounding objects? In the absense of a satisfactory scientific explanation a whole range of mystical/psudoscientific possibilities were proposed. Some people thought it was ball lightning that is constituted in a human body, other thought it had to do with quantum events causing a chain reaction, some thought it was cold fusion happening in the body, others thought it was ley lines (new age concept) because many of these events appeared to happen on straight lines on a map. However, in the end, the actual cause was far more mundane (the "wick effect").

If the case of spontaneous combustion can teach us anything is that we should be wary of mystical or fantastic explanations for something we currently do not understand. When/if an explanation is found, it usually turns out to be far more mundane than what people often imagine. This is not to say that they cannot be wrong, but I think we should look for more earthly explanations first.


"Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1!"

"Never tell me the odds"
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Universal Consciousness
Posted: 9/3/2012 5:17:48 AM
I addressed what you are trying to determine, at least with my opinion/guess/prediction of what you will find or not find.

Your pressure sensors are going to have to be ultra sensitive, and somehow made and arranged so that they wont be affected by movement/pressure vectors in directions that the designers of the experiment didn't anticipate. Otherwise, you will only be testing the limits of the sensors, and the design, and not testing for telekinesis.

I have another suggestion for you to try instead: in addition to the blindfolds, actually strap the participants into their chairs, so that they can't rock back and forth, or move anything save their arms. Then place a different kind of sensors on the PEOPLE, that detect muscle activation. When you find that planchette movement takes place when ZERO muscle activity is detected, then you might be on to something, again allowing for the limits of the sensors and their proper placement.

I would still expect that what you will actually learn is, that the subjects are moving the thing subconsciously, perhaps influenced by each other, and perhaps influenced by observers who are not touching the thing.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Universal Consciousness